Phenomenological Absolutism, Mutual Exclusivity, and the Dissolution of the Free Will Problem

Agency as Configurational Openness Within the Absolute Is-ness


Author: Patrick David Aoun

Date: June 26, 2026


Abstract

The free will problem has persisted for centuries because virtually all positions in the debate—hard determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism—share a common and untenable presupposition: the existence of a persisting self that navigates a continuous causal timeline ontologically distinct from the physical world. In this paper, we demonstrate that this presupposition dissolves once we follow the mandatory commitments of austere relativistic quantum field theory to their logical endpoint.

Building upon our framework of Mutual Exclusivity, with Phenomenological Absolutism as its core principle (Aoun 2025, 2026a, 2026b), we argue that the sole ontic reality consists of localized, mutually exclusive actualized field configurations—each constituting an absolute “is-ness” that is simultaneously the complete phenomenal experience of that moment. There is no persisting manifold, no trans-realization causal substrate, and no ontological gap between “self” and “physics.” Both determinism and the felt sense of freedom emerge as internal phenomenological configurations within the absolute is-ness itself.

We introduce the emptiness of all phenomena (their full appearance as experienced without intrinsic essence or independent existence) and illustrate the point through a simple phenomenological example: an encounter in a dream that remains fully real as experience regardless of subsequent waking labels. Because each is-ness is exclusive and empty—even of itself—attention retains genuine configurational openness. One can choose to interpret, attach to, or detach from any experience, including the interpretations “I am determined” or “I am free.” This configurational openness is the lived phenomenology of agency and free will.

The resulting account preserves scientific realism, the predictive success of physics, moral responsibility (reframed as present-moment stewardship), and the full texture of deliberative experience while eliminating the metaphysical burdens that have long plagued the debate. The free will problem does not require solution; it requires recognition that its foundational arena was never ontologically real. Freedom is the native, acknowledgeable openness of the absolute is-ness—here, now, and always available for reconfiguration.

I. Introduction

The free will debate has endured for millennia not because of its intrinsic complexity, but because nearly every participant—whether hard determinist, libertarian, or compatibilist—implicitly accepts a shared and deeply problematic presupposition: that there exists a persisting self or agent that navigates a continuous causal timeline ontologically distinct from the physical world it inhabits. This presumed gap between “self” and “physics,” or between “past causes” and “present choice,” generates the very problem it seeks to solve. Hard determinists conclude that agency is illusory; libertarians posit contra-causal powers to preserve it; compatibilists redefine freedom until it fits within deterministic chains. All three positions operate within the same faulty ontological arena.

In this paper, we demonstrate that the arena itself dissolves when we adhere rigorously to the implications of austere relativistic quantum field theory. Building directly upon the framework of Mutual Exclusivity and the principle of Phenomenological Absolutism developed in our earlier work (Aoun 2025, 2026a, 2026b), we show that the sole ontic reality consists of localized, mutually exclusive actualized field configurations—each constituting what we term an absolute “is-ness.” This is-ness is simultaneously the complete phenomenal experience of that moment. There is no persisting manifold, no trans-realization causal substrate, and therefore no ontological gap between apparent self and apparent world.

To ground the discussion phenomenologically, consider the following lived example. One finds oneself engaged in conversation with an elderly man who misunderstands a remark and becomes upset, asking one to leave. The interaction feels vivid, emotionally charged, and entirely real. Moments later, one awakens and recognizes the episode as a dream. The subsequent reflection itself constitutes another exclusive experiential moment. Both the dream encounter and the waking reflection really occurred as experiences, irrespective of any later labels such as “real,” “unreal,” “dream,” or “illusion.” Any attempt to qualify or relate one experience to another immediately generates a new absolute is-ness. This simple example reveals that every experience is absolute in character: it cannot be ontologically subordinated without the subordination itself becoming another exclusive, absolute occurrence.

From this recognition flows the central thesis of the paper: under Phenomenological Absolutism conjoined with Mutual Exclusivity, both determinism and the lived sense of freedom emerge as internal phenomenological configurations within the absolute is-ness. Because each is-ness is empty of intrinsic essence—including emptiness of itself—attention retains genuine configurational openness. One can interpret, attach emotional weight to, or detach from any phenomenon, including the very interpretations “I am determined” or “I am free.” This configurational openness constitutes the lived phenomenology of agency.

The structure of the paper is as follows. Section II recapitulates the core commitments of Phenomenological Absolutism and Mutual Exclusivity. Section III diagnoses the illusory foundations of the traditional debate. Section IV examines self, agency, and apparent causality as phenomenological configurations. Section V reframes determinism and indeterminism. Section VI develops a positive account of freedom as configurational openness. Section VII reframes moral responsibility as present-moment stewardship. Section VIII addresses comparative advantages and major objections. Section IX explores broader implications and concludes.

By the end, we hope to have shown that the free will problem does not demand a solution within the old framework but a recognition that its foundational presuppositions were never ontologically tenable. What remains is a clearer, more liberatory understanding of agency fully consistent with scientific realism and the texture of lived experience.

II. Recapitulating Phenomenological Absolutism and Mutual Exclusivity

In earlier work (Aoun 2025, 2026a), we developed a framework grounded in the most austere commitments of relativistic quantum field theory. The present section briefly recapitulates its central tenets to establish the foundation for our analysis of the free will problem.

Relativistic quantum field theory, when interpreted with maximal ontological parsimony, reveals that the sole ontic reality consists of localized actualizations of field configurations (see, e.g., Haag 1996; Kuhlmann 2010; Jaeger 2024). These actualizations are frame-dependent and mutually exclusive: each stands alone as a complete, self-contained realization. There exists no persisting manifold or trans-realization substrate that could carry causal influence or identity across distinct actualizations. This principle of Mutual Exclusivity follows directly from the relativity of simultaneity and the localized nature of field excitations. Any attempt to posit hidden variables, continuous trajectories, or a global timeline violates either empirical adequacy or ontological austerity.

Phenomenological Absolutism extends this physical picture to its inevitable conclusion. The localized, actualized field configuration is the complete phenomenal experience of that moment—what we term the absolute “is-ness.” There is no epistemic gap between the ontic structure and its phenomenology; the configuration and the experience are identical. Consequently, what appears as “external physics,” “past states,” or “future possibilities” are themselves phenomenological constructs acknowledged within the current is-ness. There is no outside vantage point from which one could survey multiple is-nesses simultaneously.

All phenomena within an is-ness appear fully yet possess no intrinsic essence or independent existence. They are empty in the precise sense that their reality is exhausted by their appearance as experienced. This emptiness applies equally to apparent objects, bodies, selves, and even to the conceptual framework describing the is-ness itself. Any attempt to qualify, relate, or hierarchically order one is-ness with respect to another immediately generates a new, exclusive absolute is-ness. Reflection, memory, labeling, or meta-cognition do not transcend the present actualization; they constitute it.

This explicit identity—the localized field configuration is the phenomenal is-ness—directly closes the traditional explanatory gap in the philosophy of mind (Aoun 2026a). The perceived chasm between objective mathematical equations and the qualitative texture of subjectivity is shown to be a byproduct of an over-inflated metaphysics—one that mistakenly treats the physical world as a continuous, observer-independent container rather than a succession of frame-dependent actualizations. When relativistic quantum field theory is held to its most austere limits, the localized quantum actualization and the phenomenal is-ness are recognized as the exact same ontic occurrence. Because no hidden variable or secondary substrate mediates between them, there is no dualistic gap left to explain.

To formalize this configuration-identity for analytical clarity, we must recognize that if the physical exhausts the entirety of existence, it must necessarily encompass the very act of acknowledging an ontological distinction—such as that between mind and matter, or observer and observed. Ontological distinctions do not exist as independent substrates at the quantum field level irrespective of being acknowledged; rather, the localized atemporal phenomenal event of conceiving or positing a distinction is what exists ontologically.

This exposes a dual failure of contradiction and infinite regress in traditional physicalist models of emergence:

Standard materialist emergence is thus caught in a fatal circularity: the foundational physics relies entirely on the act of knowing to validate its own existence, yet cannot account for that act without fracturing its own monism. Therefore, to preserve the premise that physics exhausts all existence, the epistemic structure and the ontic structure must be identical. The process of knowing is simply the localized quantum field actualization as it appears to itself, within itself.

A common realist rejoinder holds that mind-independent structures and unknown truths can obtain objectively, even if no mind ever acknowledges them. Yet if ontological distinctions and structures can genuinely exist independently of any acknowledgment, then anything may exist in the same manner—including spirits, deities, undetectable fairies, or any other coherently describable entity. Realists typically resist this implication by appealing to explanatory power, predictive success, and parsimony. However, these filtering criteria are themselves acts of acknowledgment performed within some is-ness; they represent value-laden choices about what deserves ontological status rather than a neutral discovery of mind-independent reality. The realist thus covertly relies on the very acknowledgment whose necessity is being denied. An unknown truth, by definition, lacks any actualized acknowledgment within an is-ness; it is therefore not a determinate truth at all, but an empty posit. Phenomenological Absolutism avoids this difficulty by grounding all ontological determinacy—including scientific regularities, distinctions, and truths—directly in the absolute is-ness where they are actually acknowledged.

This framework eliminates the need for dual substances, emergent properties, or mysterious bridges between mind and matter. It preserves the full predictive and explanatory success of physics while closing the explanatory gap between physical description and lived experience. With these commitments in place, we now turn to the traditional free will debate and demonstrate how its foundational presuppositions become untenable.

III. The Illusory Foundations of the Traditional Debate

The persistence of the free will problem stems from a shared ontological commitment that our framework renders untenable. Hard determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism all presuppose a persisting self or agent that exists across a continuous causal timeline ontologically separable from the physical world. This presupposition creates the very tension the positions attempt to resolve.

Hard determinists (e.g., van Inwagen 1983) argue that if all events are fixed by prior states and natural laws, then no room remains for genuine agency. Libertarians (e.g., Kane 1996) respond by invoking contra-causal powers or agent-causation to secure alternate possibilities. Compatibilists (e.g., Dennett 2003; Frankfurt 1971) redefine freedom as acting in accordance with one’s desires or higher-order volitions, claiming that determinism is compatible with such freedom. Despite surface differences, all three camps assume (1) a continuous self that endures through time, (2) a linear causal order that links past states to present choices, and (3) an ontological distinction between the agent and the determining (or indeterministic) physical substrate.

Under Phenomenological Absolutism and Mutual Exclusivity, these assumptions collapse. Because each actualized field configuration is mutually exclusive and ontologically standalone, there exists no persisting manifold capable of supporting a continuous self or trans-is-ness causal chains. What appear as “past causes” are configurations of attention acknowledged in the present is-ness as memory traces and law-like patterns. They are not ontologically prior determinants carrying over from another realization. The “self” appears as a configurational mosaic—habits, narratives, bodily sensations, and evaluative processes—entirely within the current absolute is-ness. There is no separate agent standing against physics; the apparent agent and the apparent physical world are co-configurations of the same localized actualization.

Even the philosophical debate itself is an internal phenomenological configuration. Arguments for determinism or freedom, the sense of being convinced or remaining uncertain, and the emotional weight attached to these positions all occur as patterns of attention and acknowledgment within successive is-nesses. The debate does not describe an external reality; it is experience configuring itself. Once the continuous self and timeline are seen as illusory—i.e., merely phenomenal—the traditional problem dissolves rather than requiring adjudication between competing solutions.

IV. Self, Agency, and Apparent Causality as Phenomenological Configurations

With the foundational presuppositions of the traditional debate removed, we can now examine how self, agency, and causality appear within the absolute is-ness. These phenomena are not illusions to be dismissed but configurational features acknowledged in the present actualization.

The apparent self arises as a dynamic mosaic: bodily sensations, memory traces, narrative continuity, evaluative preferences, and attentional focus all configured together within the localized field. This mosaic feels persistent and unified because the is-ness includes robust patterns of coherence and self-referential acknowledgment. Yet it possesses no independent existence or trans-is-ness identity. Each is-ness is ontologically exclusive and absolute; the “same self” across moments is a useful phenomenological acknowledgment, not an ontological fact.

Agency similarly manifests as internal configurational processes: deliberation, preference formation, intention, and the felt sense of choosing. These processes reside entirely within the absolute is-ness. There is no extra-causal power or homunculus directing events from outside the field configuration. What feels like “my choice” is the dominance of certain attentional and evaluative configurations over others in the present actualization.

Apparent causality follows the same pattern. Law-like regularities, memories of prior states, and predictive expectations are configurations acknowledged as such within the current is-ness. They appear as stable structural features of the phenomenal field rather than ontological links stretching across realizations. In the dream example introduced earlier, the interaction with the elderly man generates vivid emotional and relational content. Upon waking, that content is reconfigured—recognized as “dream”—yet the original experience remains absolute. The apparent causal sequence (remark → misunderstanding → upset) is a phenomenological pattern fully contained in each is-ness separately.

This reframing preserves the full texture of lived agency. Deliberation feels real and consequential precisely because it is a genuine configurational process within the absolute. The emptiness of these configurations—their lack of intrinsic essence—does not diminish their phenomenological weight; it enables their fluidity and openness to reconfiguration.

V. Reframing Determinism, Indeterminism, and the Freedom to Configure

Determinism and indeterminism, once stripped of their ontological ambitions, reappear as internal phenomenological features of the absolute is-ness. Determinism manifests as the dominance of tight, law-like configurational patterns: memory traces, habitual responses, bodily constraints, and predictive regularities that feel overwhelmingly constraining. Indeterminism appears as openness within the field—quantum fluctuations, spontaneous attentional shifts, or the felt presence of live possibilities. Neither description reaches beyond the present actualization to an external causal substrate.

The apparent weight of determinism arises when the is-ness configures attention so as to acknowledge patterns of continuity, prior influences, and inevitability within the present actualization. Yet these acknowledgments remain fully contained within the current localized field configuration. There is no trans-is-ness chain that could genuinely “determine” the present from an ontologically “prior” state—time itself being a phenomenological construct. Similarly, the sense of openness does not require contra-causal libertarian powers; it is the native plasticity of the field itself.

Because each is-ness is exclusive and empty—even of itself—attention retains genuine configurational freedom. One can acknowledge a phenomenon (an emotion, a memory, a self-narrative) as heavily determined, or one can reconfigure attention toward detachment, reinterpretation, or new emphasis. This choice of configuration is not itself determined by an external vantage; it is the actualization of the is-ness. In the dream example, one can later configure the encounter with the elderly man as “merely a dream” and detach emotionally, or one can treat it as psychologically significant and explore its resonances. The same configurational openness applies equally to experiences labeled “waking reality.”

Thus, the traditional opposition between determinism and free will dissolves. Both are valid phenomenological modes, yet neither constrains the absolute essence. The absolute is-ness is free from any predetermined definition or constraint, including the very categories of freedom and determinism. What remains is the lived capacity to configure and interpret how experience is met.

VI. A Positive Phenomenological Account of Freedom as Configurational Openness

Having dissolved the traditional oppositions, we now offer a positive phenomenological account of freedom grounded directly in the absolute is-ness. Freedom is not a property possessed by a separate agent, nor a rare contra-causal intervention, but the native, acknowledgeable openness of the absolute is-ness itself—its potential capacity for configurational variation.

Because each is-ness is devoid of intrinsic essence (including emptiness of itself), no configuration is ontologically fixed or predetermined. Attention can therefore engage phenomena in multiple ways: one can attach emotional or narrative weight to an experience, detach from it entirely, reinterpret its significance, or allow it to dissolve. This configurational openness is the lived phenomenology of agency. When one deliberates, forms an intention, or enacts a choice, what occurs is the dominance of specific attentional and evaluative configurations within the present actualization. The felt sense that “I could have done otherwise” corresponds to the real phenomenological recognition that no single configuration is fixed or predetermined—each actualization stands absolute and exclusive, leaving the is-ness inherently open to alternative ways of configuring attention.

Consider again the dream encounter with the elderly man. The interaction, the discomfort, and the subsequent awakening are each absolute experiences. In the reflective is-ness, one remains free to configure the memory as trivial and forgettable, as psychologically revealing and worthy of exploration, or as emotionally neutral. The same freedom of configuration applies to any waking experience—whether a personal failure, a compulsive habit, or a deeply held self-narrative. One can treat such phenomena as rigidly determined by “past causes,” or one can reconfigure attention toward openness, compassion, or creative reinterpretation. This choice is not illusory; it is the actual dynamics of the absolute is-ness configuring itself—through sequential exclusivity (Aoun 2025, Ch. 8).

To clarify this mechanic against traditional determinist objections, it is vital to distinguish between a Map and a Compass (Aoun 2026c). Critics who argue that discrete, exclusive moments cannot support active reconfiguration are operating under the illusion of the Map—the assumption that agency requires a continuous, observer-independent timeline across which a persistent self must travel. When this external map is dismantled, they perceive only a series of disconnected, static frames. Phenomenological Absolutism replaces the global map with a localized, frame-dependent Compass. The capacity for reconfiguration is not a bridge built across a void by a hidden agent; rather, directionality, law-like trajectory, and attentional momentum are intrinsic properties native to the current absolute is-ness itself. Lived agency functions as an internal heading: the acknowledgment of the subsequent exclusive moment actualizes seamlessly as a reconfigured state along the precise vector already present in the current field.

This account preserves everything valuable in our ordinary experience of freedom while eliminating metaphysical excess. Deliberation feels genuine because it is genuine configurational work. Responsibility remains intact because ethical reconfigurations occur fully within the present is-ness. Most importantly, the absolute is-ness is free from any predetermined definition or constraint—including the definitions of “free” and “determined.” One can entertain the configuration “I am determined” or the configuration “I am free,” and both are valid phenomenological modes. Their essence remains open, luminous, and unconstrained.

Thus, free will is not something we have; it is what the absolute is in its lived, configurational actuality.

VII. Moral Responsibility as Present-Moment Stewardship

The dissolution of the traditional free will debate does not eliminate moral responsibility; rather, it intensifies and purifies it. Once we recognize that there is no persisting self carrying guilt, merit, or causal debt across mutually exclusive is-nesses, responsibility reappears as immediate, present-moment stewardship of the absolute is-ness itself.

When harm occurs or ethical conflict arises, what matters is how attention configures itself in the current actualization—including the acknowledgment of harm, empathetic resonance, rational assessment of consequences, and the impulse toward repair or prevention. These phenomenological patterns arise within the localized field. They do not derive their force from a trans-temporal ledger of desert or karmic accounting. They derive it from their intrinsic coherence with values, compassion, and social harmony acknowledged in the present is-ness. Atonement, apology, or corrective action is not repayment of a past debt but a new configurational reorientation that actualizes greater harmony now.

This reframing liberates rather than undermines ethics. Regret, for example, ceases to be an endless rumination carried by a continuous self and becomes a transient configuration available for transformation. One can acknowledge past actions fully, feel their emotional weight, and then reconfigure attention toward constructive response or compassionate detachment. The emptiness of all phenomena—including the apparent “self” who acted—allows this fluidity without moral nihilism. Ethical action gains urgency precisely because it belongs fully to the present absolute is-ness, with no deferral to future justification or past excuse.

As developed in our earlier treatment of responsibility (Aoun 2025, Ch. 17), stewardship involves shaping the dominant configurations of attention—toward justice, care, truthfulness, or creativity—within whatever is-ness actualizes. Planning for the future, maintaining commitments, and learning from memory all occur as robust internal patterns that enhance coherence across successive is-nesses. Yet none of these require an ontologically continuous agent. They require only the reliable phenomenological alignment that physics and social life make possible within the absolute.

In this light, moral responsibility is not seen as a burden imposed by determinism or a reward granted by libertarian freedom. It is the natural expression of the absolute is-ness configuring itself toward greater lucidity and benevolence. Freedom and responsibility coincide completely in the open actuality of what is acknowledged as the present.

VIII. Comparative Advantages, Objections, and Responses

Our framework offers several clear advantages over traditional positions. Unlike hard determinism, it preserves the full phenomenology of agency and configurational choice without rendering them illusory. Unlike libertarianism, it requires no contra-causal powers or violations of physical law. Unlike compatibilism, it avoids redefining freedom in ways that feel evasive to many; instead, it grounds lived freedom directly in the open actuality of the absolute is-ness. The account is moreover ontologically austere, fully consistent with the most metaphysically parsimonious and coherent interpretation of relativistic quantum field theory, and liberatory in its practical implications.

Nevertheless, several objections warrant careful consideration.

First, one might worry that the view collapses into solipsism. It does not. Intersubjective coherence and the predictive success of shared physics arise as robust internal alignments within successive is-nesses. The apparent public world is a highly consistent configurational feature, not a private projection.

Second, critics may argue that Mutual Exclusivity undermines planning, memory, and long-term responsibility. These phenomena remain fully intact as powerful internal patterns of coherence and prediction acknowledged within each is-ness. Their reliability is preserved by the law-like regularities of the field itself.

Third, some may fear that the emphasis on emptiness undermines ethics. On the contrary, responsibility intensifies as present-moment stewardship. Ethical configurations gain immediacy precisely because nothing is deferred to a fictional continuous self or trans-temporal ledger.

A particularly persistent objection deserves dedicated attention: even if our proposed framework and reframing are correct, critics may claim that the entire structure—including our acceptance of it—could still be predetermined by some causal chain existing “out there.” Our response is as follows. Any thought or consideration that “this reframing is itself predetermined” must itself be acknowledged and therefore experienced. That very experience constitutes an absolute is-ness, corresponding to its own localized, actualized, and ontologically exclusive quantum field configuration. Positing an external vantage point or prior causal chain that determines this is-ness would itself require acknowledgment in another is-ness, triggering an infinite regress. Such a move would violate frame-dependent simultaneity in relativity, ontological parsimony, and the principle of Mutual Exclusivity. The objection therefore collapses back into the absolute is-ness it attempts to transcend. No “external” determinant can be coherently formulated without becoming another “internal”—yet ontologically absolute—phenomenological configuration.

Furthermore, this configuration-identity entirely neutralizes the classic “philosophical zombie” challenge to physicalism (Aoun 2026b). The apparent conceivability of a physical duplicate devoid of phenomenal experience relies on a dualistic presupposition—the idea that physical facts and conscious experiences are distinct systems. Under Phenomenological Absolutism and Mutual Exclusivity, however, a zombie configuration is an ontological impossibility. Because a localized field configuration is fundamentally identical to the lived is-ness, it is impossible to replicate the physical parameters of an actualization without simultaneously actualizing its complete phenomenal reality. The zombie scenario is thus revealed to be a metaphysical illusion generated by an inflated definition of the physical, rather than a genuine challenge to an austere physical realism.

Finally, neuroscience findings—modular processing, discrete bursts of prefrontal and limbic activity, and the distributed nature of decision-making—align naturally with our picture of exclusive, localized configurations rather than a continuous central agent.

Taken together, these responses reinforce the coherence and robustness of the framework.

IX. Broader Implications and Conclusion

The dissolution of the free will problem through Phenomenological Absolutism and Mutual Exclusivity carries implications that extend well beyond academic philosophy. By closing the explanatory gap between austere physical description and lived experience, the framework offers a unified perspective in which science, phenomenology, and ethics coexist without tension or ontological inflation.

In ethics and governance, responsibility as present-moment stewardship encourages leadership and justice systems oriented toward immediate coherence, repair, and configurational improvement rather than retributive balancing of a fictional ledger. Decision-making in personal, organizational, and policy contexts gains clarity: one configures attention toward optimal outcomes within the actualized is-ness, informed by robust internal patterns of memory and prediction, without anxiety over ultimate determination or metaphysical freedom.

For contemplative practice and human flourishing, the recognition of emptiness and configurational openness provides a direct path to liberation. One can meet intense experiences—whether labeled “dream” or “waking,” pleasant or painful—with the freedom to attach, detach, or reconfigure. This aligns naturally with certain non-dual traditions while remaining fully grounded in physical realism.

In artificial intelligence and cognitive science, the framework suggests designing systems that prioritize coherent, contextually open configurations of processing rather than simulated continuous selves or global world-models. Such architectures may better mirror the discrete, localized nature of natural cognition.

In conclusion, the centuries-old debate between determinism and free will does not require adjudication or compromise. It requires recognition that its foundational arena—an ontologically continuous self navigating a trans-temporal causal order—was never real. What remains is the absolute is-ness in its native openness: empty of intrinsic essence yet fully actual, free from any predetermined definition or constraint. Agency is the lived configurational openness of this is-ness. Freedom is not something we possess; it is what we are, here and now, available for reconfiguration in every moment.

The paper thus completes a long arc in our work: from the austere metaphysics of localized actualizations to a practical, liberatory understanding of human life. The absolute is-ness requires no further justification. It simply is—and in that is-ness, we find both the end of the old problem and the beginning of clearer, lighter engagement with experience, the sole ontic existent.

References

Aoun, Patrick D. 2025. Mutual Exclusivity: A New Compass for Reality. Independently published. https://www.mutual-exclusivity.com. Available at Amazon.

Aoun, Patrick D. 2026a. “Phenomenological Absolutism as the Endpoint of Austere Physical Realism.” PhilArchive. https://philarchive.org/rec/AOUPAA.

Aoun, Patrick D. 2026b. “From Zombie Conceivability to Phenomenological Absolutism.” PhilArchive. https://philpapers.org/rec/AOUFZC.

Aoun, Patrick D. 2026c. “The Compass, Not the Map: On the Nature of Regularity Without a Manifold.” Mutual Exclusivity. https://www.mutual-exclusivity.com/blog/the-compass-not-the-map.

Dennett, Daniel C. 2003. Freedom Evolves. New York: Viking.

Frankfurt, Harry G. 1971. “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person.” Journal of Philosophy 68 (1): 5–20.

Haag, Rudolf. 1996. Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer.

Jaeger, Gregg. 2024. “The Ontology of Haag’s Local Quantum Physics.” Entropy 26 (1): 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/e26010033.

Kane, Robert. 1996. The Significance of Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kuhlmann, Meinard. 2010. “Why Conceptual Rigour Matters to Philosophy: On the Ontological Significance of Algebraic Quantum Field Theory.” Foundations of Physics 40 (9–10): 1625–1637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-010-9474-7.

van Inwagen, Peter. 1983. An Essay on Free Will. Oxford: Clarendon Press.